tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post7899972578233246565..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: A Live Filibuster Plan Even I Could SupportJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-44692810941264051482013-01-07T23:17:53.377-06:002013-01-07T23:17:53.377-06:00Yeah, I’ve been thinking about the implementation ...Yeah, I’ve been thinking about the implementation of Superbill! since your last reply to my comment about the unintended consequences.<br /><br />http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-i-think-merkelyudall-has-it-wrong.html?showComment=1357004987191#c6559093035099195193<br /><br /><br />I actually had the mistaken impression that it would be limited to 5 or 6 bills. But even when the majority has the ability to put any and all bills for the year into Superbill!, I don’t think the minority will limit its obstruction much.<br /><br />That’s for two simple reasons: <br />1) By using the filibuster on all solo bills, the minority might be able to force multiple disparate measures into Superbill!, likely jamming up the Majority Leader’s tactical maneuvering space within his own caucus. (And if he declines to fold them into Superbill!, many of the multiple silent filibusters will prevail anyway.)<br /><br />2) The minority would certainly enjoy the chance to amend each and every one of those measures now in Superbill! with only 51 votes. Some amendments would be serious and policy-oriented, giving them real leverage (not a bad thing, but better to have them buy in earlier, so you can actually discuss and hammer out compromises), and some would be embarrassing poison pills.<br /><br />Wouldn’t these two possibilities used together amount to even greater minority influence than exists now? They’d basically have the power to obstruct in the manner they are accustomed to, or throw your entire agenda wrapped up in one big ball off a cliff, to see if it bounces or shatters.<br /><br />And then there’s the possibility of a hostile House and/or White House. In many cases, Superbill! may just not turn out to be worth the time and effort.<br /><br />Given that potential landscape, the Majority Leader may actually value moving bills in a more classic, orderly way, to preserve messaging clarity on the measures themselves, and to builda narrative about the minority’s obstruction throughout the session. They could still use Superbill! towards the end of the year, but maybe only for 1-3 measures.<br /><br />Also, I think that the Reconciliation precedent is not a good one to build on. It seems to me that it’s been a significant contributor to the modern perception that 60 votes are necessary, and 50 votes are a special circumstance. <br /><br />But I agree that the approach is a sound one. It’s virtually impossible to recreate extinct norms through new rules. So providing new incentives for members to consider simply returning to norms on their own, or to create new positive norms, is probably all we’ve got.andrew longnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-80360960725932712542013-01-07T13:55:35.672-06:002013-01-07T13:55:35.672-06:00I suppose simple majority cloture on exec branch n...I suppose simple majority cloture on exec branch nominations. That's a much stronger reform than what Merkley/Udall want. I think "except Superbill" is unfair; Superbill, in my view, would do a lot more to break the 60 vote Senate on legislation than anything Merkley/Udall are for (although not as much as what Harkin wants).<br /><br />On the other point, I think that's a fair critique of Superbill...but my hope would be that once there's a clear outlet for intense majorities, partisan minorities might be more inclined to give up (losing) filibusters on other bills. But it might go the other way, and I agree that's not a good thing.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-666305556617696012013-01-07T13:41:45.697-06:002013-01-07T13:41:45.697-06:00Don't strong majority objections already have ...Don't strong majority objections already have a ton of leverage? Except for "Superbill"*, you almost always seem to support changes that are weaker than even the weak tea stuff the Senate is already considering.<br /><br />*Superbill itself seems like a bad idea to me - we should not be encouraging the idea that all legislation in a session should be passed in a single, take it or leave it, bill - that this is already happening is a symptom of Senate dysfunction, and increasing that tendency would not be a cure for it.<br /><br />I still think that a good first step would be to return the cloture rules to requiring 3/5 of members present and voting, rather than 3/5 of all senators.Johnnoreply@blogger.com